The fact of the case of the complainant in a nutshell is that the complainant is a bonafide customer under the OP/Bank having Savings Bank account no.418710110001485. In the end of the year 2013, the complainant approached
the Op/Bank for taking loan for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- for purchasing a flat. On perusal of all documents of the complainant the then Branch Manager of the oP Bank told the complainant that he would get loan nearer to Rs.20,00,000/- and the same is repayable with 240 EMI at the rate of Rs.16,353/- . On 6.1.2014 the OP Bank issued one letter to their Advocate for verification and searching of Title deed etc. and handed over the said letter to the complainant. The Bank also told the complainant that the charge of searching etc will be paid by the Bank and in the said letter it has been corroborated. On 3.2.2014 , the Advocate of Bank submitted his report of searching and the charge of the searching was taken by the Bank from the complainant. Therefore, the oP/Bank adopted the tactic of delay for the payment of loan although series of correspondence was made from the side of the complainant. In the meantime, the Developer created pressure upon the complainant for payment as per agreement for purchasing of the flat. On 15.3.2014 the complainant wrote a letter to the Bank authority to return the Home loan documents and searching fees. After two month the oP Bank told the complainant that the loan amount shall be Rs.17,54,000/- (not Rs.20,00,000/-) and the EMI will be Rs.17,500/-. The OP /Bank failed to keep his commitment and finally on 28.3.2014 the oP expressed his sorry to inform the complainant that
their loan application has turned down. Hence, this complaint filed by the complainant with prayer as laid down in the prayer portion of the complaint.
The OP/Bank has contested the case by filing written version denying inter alia all material allegations. The positive case of the oP is that as per Circular of the Bank all the papers and documents of the loan should be correct and perfect and after through checking all the papers send to Higher authority for sanction of the loan, further the complainant and their developer made assured to submits all the necessary papers to the oP Bank along with amalgamated Holding no.(9) the plot but the complainant and their developer did not submit the necessary papers, actually from the total area of land is not as per Developer agreement & in the amalgamated holding no.(9) the plot which are amalgamated is not mentioned in the assessment registrar page of Uttarpara Kotrung Municipality . As per Home Loan application the Howrah Zonal office did not sanction of the loan as there was defect in the papers. Further in case of loan if any defect is found at any moment bank has right to reject the same and the party cannot claim the claim in this regard. The OP prays for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant filed (1) Home Loan application (2) letter dated 25.3.2014 addressed to the Manager, Bank of India, in original (3) copy of letter dated
15.3.2014 addressed to Branch Manager, Bank of India, (4) copy of letter from S.K.Builders & Developers (P) Ltd dated 20,.3.2014 (5) Loan sanctioned by the LIC in favour of the complainant, (6) Additional loan as sanctioned by the LIC (7) Searching fees payment receipt and (8) Bank Advocate’s searching report and endorsement of approval by the Bank Manager. Complainant also filed Evidence in chief and Written Notes of Argument.
Op filed (1) RBI frequently asked questions publicly available from the RBI official Website (2) Revised service charges on retail loans publicly available from the Bank of India Website. OP also filed Evidence in chief and Written Notes of argument.
POINTS FOR DECISION :
- Whether the complainant is a consumer ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the oP ?
- Whether the complainant/petitioner is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
Point no.1
It is admitted fact that the complainant is an account holder of the OP Bank having S.B.A/c no. 418710110001485. It is also admitted fact that the complainant has applied for House Building loan to the oP /Bank. So the complainant is a consumer under the OP/Bank u/s 2(d)(ii) of C.P.Act 1986.
The point no.1 is thus answered in favour of the complainant.
Point no.2 and 3
Both the points are taken up together for easiness of discussion.
We have gone through the Evidence in chief of both sides, documents of both sides and argument of both sides. It is admitted fact that the complainant filed application before the OP for loan to purchase a flat and Bank authorities took adequate steps for verification of title deeds and other necessary papers as per the Rules of Bank. For that purpose , petitioner has incurred expenses. But Bank after considering the relevant papers , OP Bank found that complainant and the Developer did not submit necessary papers . Actually, regarding the amalgamation of holding no. 9 and total area of the land was not as per Developer agreement. The amalgamated holding no.9 and other plot which have been amalgamated is not mentioned in the assessment register of the Uttarpara
Municipality. Accordingly, as there was defect in the papers the Howrah Zonal office did not sanction the loan of the complainant. So, after considering this point , their conduct does not show any deficiency in service or neglect in their behavior to deal the application of loan of the complainant.
So after deliberation over the facts before us we are of opinion that the complainant’s case fails and there is no deficiency on the part of the OP/Bank. Hence it is –
Ordered
That the Complaint Case no.38 of 2015 be and the same is dismissed on contest, but no order as to cost.
Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.
